Search This Blog

Subscribe to this blog

Follow by Email

Yes, there was a Holocaust

Some months ago, I was targeted by some Nazi trolls. Their pitch to me was that (a) Amazon's dropping of some pro-Nazi titles constituted censorship and ALA should do something about it, and (b) if I would just read some key Holocaust denial works (thoughtfully appended), I would agree with them.

Of course, Amazon isn't a library. It isn't even a public entity. As a private company, it doesn't have to carry products it doesn't want to, or that it fears would offend the majority of its customers. So it didn't really fall in ALA's wheelhouse.

You just have to wonder, though: why would anyone want to stand up for one of the most compelling instances of evil in history? One clue could be found in the ludicrous "fact-finding" of one of their "researchers." A woman called us, demanding to know my "ethnic background." She complained about "disgusting" images of people with dreadlocks on the ALA website. She wanted to know if librarians had something against people with pure, Norse lineages? This same woman was later banned on Twitter for hate speech. In other words, the motives were a fairly transparent racism.

But I found myself thinking afterward about just what I am obliged to do when challenged by someone making wild claims. Clearly, not all beliefs, just because they are widely held, are true. Sometimes historical revision is justified. For instance, the genocide of Native Americans by white settlers was covered up for far too long.

Yet there are some truly looney opinions out there. There are still people who believe, or profess to believe, that the world is flat. Often, the wilder the beliefs, the more likely the believer is to suffer from logorrhea: an inability to stop writing and writing and writing.

So on the one hand, when somebody challenges a library book, the first thing I ask is "have you read the whole thing?" If not, they lose credibility. You can't judge a book by one or two random passages, although lots of people try.

On the other hand, isn't it hypocritical for me to reject the works on Holocaust denial if I won't even explore their literature?

After long thought, I have decided that the answer is "No." Why? First, if I were to spend all my time reading the ravings of madmen, I would never have time for anything else. Second, it isn't necessary. In just an hour or so, I can usually identify and test the claims of extravagant positions.

So let's say you're encountering Holocaust denial for the first time. What are they saying? The three pillars seem to be these:

Hitler didn't call for genocide

There were no gas chambers

"Only" a million or so Jews died

With just a little Googling, you can find the raw footage of Hitler calling for the extermination of the Jews. You can find ample evidence of the existence of gas chambers. Through several demographic methods, it's clear that more than 6 million Jews were deliberately exterminated - and not "just" victims of typhus in concentration camps.

So the claims of Holocaust deniers are false. You don't have to wade through thousands of websites and spurious documents. The Wikipedia or Snopes articles list the source material, and often the refutation has been around for decades. There not only isn't extraordinary proof for extraordinary claims, there isn't any proof at all, just laziness and lies.

The odd thing to me is that disproving the claims doesn't seem to stop people from repeating them. And that's the best reason I can cite not to spend much time with Holocaust deniers. They are impervious to the evidence. The arguments don't go anywhere.

So that's my thinking. Sometimes, intellectual open-mindedness means you have to be willing to seriously investigate a surprising opinion. But intellectual integrity does not require you to be held hostage to years of crackpot literature (unless you enjoy that sort of thing). Instead, identify the premises, check out the evidence for them, make up your own mind, and don't get caught up in endless, repetitive recitals of the obvious to people who have chosen an invincible ignorance.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Recently, a library patron challenged (urged a reconsideration of the ownership or placement of) a book called "Uncle Bobby's Wedding." Honestly, I hadn't even heard of it until that complaint. But I did read the book, and responded to the patron, who challenged the item through email and requested that I respond online (not via snail-mail) about her concerns.

I suspect the book will get a lot of challenges in 2008-2009. So I offer my response, purging the patron's name, for other librarians.

Uncle Bobby's wedding
June 27, 2008

Dear Ms. Patron:

Thank you for working with my assistant to allow me to fit your concerns about “Uncle Bobby's Wedding,” by Sarah S. Brannen, into our “reconsideration” process. I have been assured that you have received and viewed our relevant policies: the Library Bill of Rights, the Freedom to Read, Free Access to Libraries for Minors, the Freedom to View, and our Reconsideration Policy.

Here are my remarks at today's American Library Association Midwinter Conference. Jim Neal's Presidential Program was "Are libraries neutral?" I was first on the "pro" side of the debate.

In 1938, a time with an eery resonance to today, some citizens in Des Moines, Iowa protested a book we would now call hate speech: Hitler's Mein Kampf. Director Forrest Spaulding drafted "A Library's Bill of Rights" to establish for the first time the library's endorsement of intellectual freedom -- the right to access even uncomfortable or offensive content. Maybe, Spaulding said, we needed to know what was going on in the world.

In 1939, ALA Council approved the statement for the entire association.

Implicit in intellectual freedom is the principle of neutrality.

Let me make two things clear.

Neutrality does not mean that librarians have no values. We do. It doesn't mean that institutions don't exist to advance certain goals. Libraries activ…

Back in 2008 I presented with my good friend and fellow library director Eloise May, as well as one of her board members (Howard Rotham) and one of mine (Mark Weston) at a Public Library Association conference.

Our session was about how to evaluate a library director. (For evaluating the library board, see here.) It was based, like all good sessions, on all the things we had done wrong. We eventually figured things out, and wanted to save other people the bother of making all of our mistakes.

I had this posted on my old website as a file, and recently had a request for it. So here's my attempt to embed this from a Google Slides. Let's give it a shot. (If some of the slides are too small, click the icon to go full screen.)